<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, October 08, 2005

The Definitive Vision Thing 

We do not often frequent AndrewSullivan.com, but we made an exception yesterday because the born-again Bush basher (capital "B," please note; we certainly do not wish to raise, or dash, the hopes of Mr. Sullivan's many ardent fans) has recently been engaged in a public pissing match with a prominent Zemblan patriot and we hoped to catch, in the sense of "view," the latest exchange. Our search for high-arcing freshets came to naught, but we did discover a link to a troubling article from the Telegraph -- the Calcutta Telegraph, that is -- which we would very much like to read as an example of American braggadocio, a diplomatic bluff to secure a wavering vote:
In deciding to vote with the West and not abstaining along with Russia, China, Brazil and South Africa, what weighed with the Prime Minister was the absolute imperative for India to secure its interests in the Gulf and not the desire to protect the July 18, 2005, Indo-US nuclear agreement, according to diplomats engaged in the negotiations that led to the IAEA resolution yesterday.

Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush’s term ends. In 2002, a year before the US invaded Iraq, high-ranking Americans had similarly shared their definitive vision of a post-Saddam Iraq, making it clear that they would change the regime in Baghdad.

On the last day of his stay in New York this month, Singh made public his fears for the safety of nearly four million Indians in the Gulf in the event of diplomacy failing to persuade Iran away from a confrontation with the US and others on the nuclear issue . . . .

In talks with leaders in the US, Russia and Europe, Singh has linked India’s energy security and its comfortable balance of payments to stability in the Gulf. That squarely put India against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in violation of its own international commitment under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
We know, we know: we have no troops, we have no allies, we have plenty of disasters at home to spend our money on. To undertake such a project our leaders would have to be slavering madmen.

In other words, we buy it.

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us